Bombay High Court
Smt. Arti N. Nipane vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India, ... on 28 June, 2018
Author: S.B. Shukre
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-wp3287.17.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.3287 OF 2017
Smt. Arti N. Nipane,
Aged about 50 years
Occupation : Service,
working as :- Higher Grade Assistant,
Sr. No.441801 at Life Insurance Corporation of India,
City Branch Office (CBO),
97 F, Medical Square, Nagpur
R/o. 231, Shree Mahalaxmi Nagar,
Process Server Society, Narsala Road,
Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1 Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Central Office, Mumbai Yogakshem,
Jeevan Bima Marg, Post Box Number 11709,
through its Zonal Manager,
Mumbai-440 021.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Nagpur, Divisional Office,
National Insurance Building,
S.V. Patel Marg, Kingsway,
Post Box Number 63,
Nagpur 440 001,
through its Senior Divisional Manager.
3. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
City Branch Office (CBO),
97 F, Medical Square, Above State Bank of India,
Nagpur, through its Branch Manager.
4. Information commissioner,
Central Information Commission,
Room No.307, IInd Floor, B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Came Place,
New Delhi-110 066.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 00:23:26 :::
J-wp3287.17.odt 2/7
5. First Appellate Authority,
(appointed and constituted by the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 under the
Right to Information Act, 2005)
-cum Marketing Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Nagpur Divisional Office,
National Insurance Building,
S.V. Patel Marg, Kingsway,
Post Box Number 63,
Nagpur 440 001.
6. Chief Public Information Officer,
(appointed and constituted by the
respondent No.1 under the
Right to Information Act, 2005)
Officer/Manager (CRM),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Nagpur Divisional Office,
National Insurance Building,
S.V. Patel Marg, Kingsway,
Post Box Number 63,
Nagpur 440 001. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.A. Pathak, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri N.S. Badhe, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1,2,3,5&6.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 28
JUNE, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent.
4. By the application filed on 28.11.2015, the petitioner sought ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 00:23:26 ::: J-wp3287.17.odt 3/7 information in terms of the its last paragraph. Copy of this application has been filed on record by the petitioner and it is at Annexure-8 (Page 40).
5. The Annexure-8 application was rejected by the Information Officer on the ground that the inquiry report was confidential, meant for internal consumption and exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)
(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, "RTI Act, 2005"). This order was challenged before the Appellate Authority, which confirmed it by the order passed on 11.2.2016. The matter was carried further before the Central Information Commission which also confirmed the Information Officer's order thereby rejecting the appeal of the petitioner by its order passed on 25.10.2016.
6. It is these orders which are under challenge in this petition. It is not in dispute that there was a complaint made by the petitioner and the complaint alleged some sort harassment of the complainant at the hands of one co-employee working in the same Department as the petitioner. An inquiry was conducted into the allegations made in the complaint and it was concluded that the allegations were the result of the misunderstanding between the two employees arising from a communication gap and also some different perceptions about performance of the official duties and, therefore, the complaint was closed.
7. The petitioner after having come to know about closure of ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 00:23:26 ::: J-wp3287.17.odt 4/7 the complaint, wished to know as to what kind of versions were given by the co-employees, whose statements were recorded. This was perhaps with a view to verify as to whether or not the conclusion made by Enquiry Authority was appellable to reason. Therefore, an application under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 was filed by the complainant. But, it was rejected by all the authorities under the Act, as stated earlier.
8. Now, the question would be whether the information sought by the petitioner in respect of a proceeding of inquiry initiated at the behest of the petitioner or the complainant could be treated as confidential pushing it out of the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 or not.
9. The answer has to be given as in the negative for the simple reason that any inquiry which is initiated at the instance of the complainant and in which the complainant is allowed to take part cannot be treated as confidential vis-a-vis such complainant and the complainant would have a right to know as to what transpired in the inquiry proceeding and which facts came to the fore after the statements of other witnesses were recorded. The final Appellate Authority, the Central Information Commission, however, held that the information sought was confidential because it contained some material which if provided to the petitioner or the complainant was likely to create prejudice in the minds of the officials. The Central Information Commission also added that the matter was closed because it was a case of misunderstanding as regards the assignment of duties between the petitioner and the co-employee. ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 00:23:26 ::: J-wp3287.17.odt 5/7 These conclusions, in my considered view, are contradictory. If the misunderstanding between the employees and creation of prejudice were the reasons for closure of enquiry between the complainant and the non- complainant, I must say the reasons are mutually destructive. Closure of enquiry over misunderstanding shows absence of malice and the closure of enquiry out of fear of creation of prejudice indicates presence of malice or some oblique motive on the part of the complainant requiring some action to be taken in the interest of fair administration of the affairs of the Department. If such are the reasons given for denial of access to the complainant to the information sought the prejudice to the right of the complainant to dispute the reasons for closure of the enquiry is writ large thereby entitling the complainant to have access to such information.
10. This is a case in which the enquiry proceeding was started at the behest of the petitioner or complainant, an employee of the respondent, who was not stranger to it. The complaint was against a co- employee and inquiry was also conducted in which statements of witnesses were recorded. In such a case, one would wonder, if the complainant is not entitled to receive papers of the proceeding who else would be. It goes without saying and as a part of principles of fair procedure, equality and non-arbitrariness, the complaintant would be entitled to receive the information to satisfy himself or herself about following of these fundamental principles governing administrative ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 00:23:26 ::: J-wp3287.17.odt 6/7 actions of instrumentalities of State like respondent Nos.1 to 3. I, would, therefore, say this case is the one wherein the right of the petitioner to seek information has been adversely affected and it needs to be protected by this Court.
11. This right, however, has been denied to the petitioner and for that the authorities below have taken shelter under the provision of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. This provision reads thus :
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
(a)..........
(b)..........
(c)...........
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;"
12. It is clear from a bare reading of the above referred provision of law that the information sought by the petitioner in the present case, even by stretching things to greater limit, would not fall within its prohibition. The reason being that information sought in the present case relates to the inquiry proceeding initiated on the complaint made by the petitioner in which she took part. Such an information vis-a-vis the petitioner cannot be seen as confidential much less a trade secret or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. It is such kind of information which is ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 00:23:27 ::: J-wp3287.17.odt 7/7 prohibited under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Even such information is suspectible to disclosure when the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants its disclosure.
13. In the circumstances, I find that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
14. Writ petition is allowed.
15. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
16. It is directed that information as sought by the petitioner vide Annexure-8 be furnished to her within four weeks from the date of order.
17. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2018 00:23:27 :::